River
Y CombinatorBacked by Y Combinator
Log InStart Free
FREE TEMPLATE

Policy Brief Template with Options Analysis

Four documents and three sheets that give every option a named party who pays for it and a count of how many have already objected.

Edit with AIDownload (.docx + .csv)

Free download  ·  No account needed

What you get

Pack of 7 files: 4 documents, 3 spreadsheets

Policy Brief Template with Options Analysis
  • Options AnalysisDocument
  • Evidence RegisterSpreadsheet
  • Stakeholder Position MapSpreadsheet
  • Evidence AnnexDocument
  • Option Trade-off MatrixSpreadsheet
  • Policy BriefDocument
  • Briefing DeckDocument
RiverPolicy Brief Template with Options Analysis

Option Trade-off Matrix

Four options, and who pays for each

OptionGrid totalClaims graded strongParties made worse offAlready objected on the record
A. Report no bill123 of 7 (43%)44 of 4
B. Report the bill as drafted137 of 12 (58%)53 of 5
C. Report it with section 4(a) struck142 of 9 (22%)30 of 3
D. Threshold and a 24-month phase-in134 of 10 (40%)42 of 4

Option C tops the grid, rests on the weakest evidence, and is the only one whose cost-bearers have never filed anything. That last zero is 1,644 firms with no trade association between them.

The pack is four documents and three sheets and one rule. The sheets hold the analysis. An evidence register grades every claim strong, moderate or weak against its source. A position map records what each party has said in public and where. The trade-off matrix scores the options and prints two joins beside each score. The documents hold the output: the options analysis, the two-page brief, the evidence annex and the nine-slide version. The rule is that no option is listed without the party that pays for it.

Every sheet ships filled in for one illustrative brief to a committee weighing four options on a coverage bill. Scored across four criteria, option C tops the grid at 14 points. It also rests on 2 strong claims out of 9, the weakest of the four, and makes three parties worse off, none of whom has ever filed anything. Behind those three rows are 1,644 firms with no trade association between them.

An ordinary options table reports the score and stops. It has no column for who pays, so an option costing an unrepresented group reads exactly like consensus. Appraisal guidance is blunt about this: it is not adequate simply to report a comparison of the preferred option to the baseline. Open the pack in River and both joins are computed. Or download the sheets and run them against the parties a docket already names. The distributional column comes from costing the rule by affected group.

Every sheet in the pack

The Option Trade-off Matrix, the Stakeholder Position Map, the Evidence Register, and the brief itself.

Policy Brief Template with Options Analysis
RiverTrade-off Matrix

Option Trade-off Matrix

The criteria grid is the part every brief already has. The four columns after it are the two joins, and they are what the grid cannot show.

OptionLegal durabilityCoverageTime to effectBurden on smallest firmsTotalStrong claimsWorse offOn the record
A. Report no bill1245123 of 7 (43%)44 of 4
B. Report the bill as drafted5521137 of 12 (58%)53 of 5
C. Report it with section 4(a) struck2453142 of 9 (22%)30 of 3
D. Threshold and a 24-month phase-in5413134 of 10 (40%)42 of 4

Scores run 1 to 5, unweighted, which encodes the assumption that all four criteria matter equally. Say that out loud rather than letting a total imply it.

RiverStakeholder Position Map

Stakeholder Position Map

Two columns do the work here. What a party has said in public, with the document behind it, and who files on their behalf.

PartySizeOn the recordWhereWorse off underRepresented by
Coatings Manufacturers Association340 membersYesDocket comment and a 9,440-letter campaignB, DItself
Contract Blenders Council610 membersYesDocket comment asking for a volume thresholdBItself
Independent repackagers1,240 firmsNoNothing filed anywhereB, C, DNobody
Single-site blenders below the threshold190 firmsNoTheir council’s filing excludes themCNominally the council
Pre-1998 exempt facilities214 firmsNoNothing filed anywhereB, C, DNobody
State environmental agencies50 agenciesYesJoint letter, all 50 signedAItself
Fire services associationYesHearing testimony, 21 AprilA, DItself

The blenders council row is the subtle one. It files, and its filing asks for a threshold its own 190 smallest members sit below, so those members are represented on paper and nowhere else.

RiverEvidence Register

Evidence Register

One row per claim rather than one per source, because a single report usually supports several claims of different strengths.

IDClaimSourceStrengthWhy that gradeOptions citing it
C02The proposed rule puts the respondent count at 2,190Notice paperwork analysisStrongThe agency’s own published estimate, which it has to defendA, B, C, D
C041,240 repackagers are 67% of the 1,850 newly reachedArithmetic on C02 and C03StrongWorking shown in full, no judgement involvedC, D
C06190 council members run a single site below the proposed thresholdTrade press articleWeakUnsourced figure, no method statedC, D
C0811 docket comments say the agency lacks authority over repackagersDocketStrongCounted directly from the docketA, B, C
C11Litigation would take 18 to 30 monthsInterested party estimateWeakOffered verbally by a party with an interest, no methodA, C
C24Repackagers have no trade associationAbsence of any filing or registrationModerateAn absence established by search, which cannot be proven outrightC, D

C06 is the claim worth chasing. Four of option C’s nine claims are weak and three of those four trace to one article, so grading C06 properly would move the ranking more than any other single row.

RiverPolicy Brief

Policy Brief

Two pages. The options section carries a cost-bearer on every option, including the one where the committee does nothing.

SectionWhat goes in it
The decisionWhether to report the coverage bill, and in what form. Markup is 14 May.
What is actually happening340 covered by statute. The rule reaches 2,190 by definition. 41,284 comments, 11 disputing authority.
The options, each with who paysSame block shape four times, so they can be compared by eye rather than by argument.
The thing worth ten secondsOption C tops the grid, has the weakest evidence, and is the only one whose losers are silent.
What staff recommendNothing yet, and the two obtainable things that would settle it before 14 May.
What is in the annex26 claims from 14 sources. 12 parties, 9 with a position on the record.

The recommendation section is allowed to say nothing yet. What it is not allowed to do is recommend an option the options table was built to make look inevitable.

Edit with AI

What's in the pack

01

Option Trade-off Matrix sheet

The criteria grid every brief already has, plus the four columns it cannot produce. Who each option makes worse off, how many of them have objected publicly, how many supporting claims are strong, and the cost-bearers named in full.

02

Stakeholder Position Map sheet

One row per party, carrying what they want, what they have actually said on the record, the document it is in, and who files on their behalf. That last column is where nobody belongs, and writing it is what makes the silence countable.

03

Evidence Register sheet

One row per claim rather than one per source, each graded strong, moderate or weak with the reason in a line. Gaps get rows too, since a claim everyone assumes and nobody sourced is a finding. It works like an evidence extraction table.

04

Options Analysis

The longlist, what came off it and why, then each shortlisted option with what happens, who pays, the evidence share and what it trades away. A longlist with no rejections recorded is a shortlist that was written first.

05

Policy Brief

Two pages, six parts, with an identical block shape on every option so they compare by eye. The recommendation section is allowed to say that the evidence does not yet support picking, and to name the two things that would settle it.

06

Evidence Annex

The register written out and grouped, with the grading reasoning attached, so a reader who disbelieves a sentence can check it in under a minute. It ends with what the register does not contain.

07

Briefing Deck

Nine slides for the version delivered out loud, built so it survives being forwarded without its narrator. The cost-bearer sits on the same slide as the option, because a deck that separates them is a deck where the later slide gets skipped.

08

No option is listed without the party that pays for it

The standing space rule every prompt reads first. It applies to the no-action option too, which is the one that usually ships with an empty cost column and is also the one a committee gets by default when it cannot agree.

How to use it

  1. 1

    Open in River, or download it

    Open the pack in River and the agent builds the register and the position map with you, or download the three CSV sheets and four Word documents instantly, filled in with the worked example.

  2. 2

    Generate a longlist, then cut it in the open

    Six to eight options including the reference case, one more ambitious than anything under discussion and one that costs less. Record every rejection with its reason.

  3. 3

    Name a loser for every option

    A party specific enough that somebody could write to them, not a sector. Straw men cannot survive this field. Where an option genuinely costs nobody, ask who is doing the thing that stops happening.

  4. 4

    Run both joins before you recommend anything

    Look every cost-bearer up in the position map, count the strong claims behind each option, and print all three numbers together. Where they disagree, that is the most useful sentence in the brief.

Frequently asked questions

Is this template free?

Yes. Download the whole pack as CSV sheets and Word documents with no signup and no credit card. Edit with AI is a separate, optional path that has the agent build the register and the position map with you. The template library holds the rest of the packs.

What format are the downloaded files?

CSV for the three sheets and Word documents for the options analysis, the brief, the annex and the deck outline, in one zip. They open in Excel, Numbers, Sheets, Word, Pages and Google Docs with nothing to convert. Inside River the same content opens as live Docs and Sheets.

How is this different from the usual policy brief template?

The usual one gives you headings. This one adds a mandatory field: every option names the party who is worse off under it. That single field removes straw men, because a straw man has no losers, and it makes the options section something a decision-maker can use instead of skip.

What does the on-the-record count actually tell me?

How much of the objection to an option is visible, and nothing else. Heavy recorded opposition does not make an option wrong. Zero recorded opposition usually means the losers have no organisation that files, which is why the option feels consensual until the day it lands.

Should the no-action option really get the same treatment?

Yes, and it is the one most often left blank. UK appraisal guidance requires that business as usual is always carried into the comparison as the benchmark, and notes it does not mean nothing happens. It is also what a committee gets by default when it cannot agree.

Can I still make a recommendation?

Yes. What the pack blocks is a recommendation the options section was built to make inevitable. The challenge prompt checks whether the recommended option is the one with the weakest evidence or the quietest losers. Answering a government consultation is different work: that response maps coverage question by question rather than recommending among your own options.

Does it work outside government policy?

The structure holds anywhere someone picks between options with different losers: a board, a funder, a standards committee, a hospital trust. Where the decision starts from a rule or a bill instead, the filing analysis and the bill redline feed this pack, as does a comparison with a source in every cell.

Sources

  1. The White HouseCircular A-4 (opens in a new tab)
  2. GOV.UKThe Green Book — UK government guidance on appraisal (opens in a new tab)

Written by

Chandler Supple

Co-founder & CEO, River

Chandler has spent the last six years working in AI, building tools for millions of users and Fortune 100 companies. In 2025, he co-founded River to build a new kind of operating system for AI agents.

LinkedInGitHubX

Reviewed by

Brian Joseff, Co-founder, River

LinkedInX

Related

Proposed rule impact and obligation analysis

Works out whether a rule reaches you and what it would cost, which is the evidence a brief about that rule runs on.

Public comment and docket synthesis

Turns a docket into the distinct arguments behind it, which is where most on-the-record positions come from.

Legislative bill redline and analysis

Applies every amendment to the current text, so an option about a bill is an option about the law it would leave behind.

More free templates

FOIA Request and Escalation Template

Free FOIA request template that scopes every request against the agency's own structure, then escalates to match what actually happened.

Government Consultation Response Template

Free government consultation response template: maps every question to a coverage decision, grades your evidence, and checks each answer stands alone.

Regulatory Tracking Spreadsheet Template

Free regulatory tracking spreadsheet template that tags every next action date by type, so a closing comment deadline never reads like a rescheduling hearing.

Annotated Bibliography Template by Question

Free annotated bibliography template: a source register rated against every research question separately, plus citations ready to export.

Find out who pays for the option you were going to recommend

Send the decision, who makes it, and whatever evidence you have collected. The options come back with a named loser on each one.

Edit with AI